McCain Attempts to Unify GOP Support: CPAC TEXT

[bhkad]

McCain Attempts to Unify GOP Support: CPAC TEXT

Here is the text of John McCain's CPAC speech.

In the weeks to come you will need to refer back to this speech to be certain of where he is on various issues, like border security, immigration and amnesty, for example.

Good speech.

Text of John McCain's CPAC Remarks
February 7, 3:32 PM

Said one Yeas & Nays tipster: "It's like a zoo in here. A riot might break out."

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. It's been a little while since I've had the honor of addressing you, and I appreciate very much your courtesy to me today. We should do this more often. I hope you will pardon my absence last year, and understand that I intended no personal insult to any of you. I was merely pre-occupied with the business of trying to escape the distinction of pre-season frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which, I'm sure some of you observed, I managed to do in fairly short order. But, now, I again have the privilege of that distinction, and this time I would prefer to hold on to it for a while.

I know I have a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November. And I am acutely aware that I cannot succeed in that endeavor, nor can our party prevail over the challenge we will face from either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, without the support of dedicated conservatives, whose convictions, creativity and energy have been indispensible to the success our party has had over the last quarter century. Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition. If not, thank you for this opportunity to make my case today. ​

Yeas and Nays: Text of John McCains CPAC Remarks - Examiner.com

More at link.

 

[Schweddy]

Ain't gunna happen. I would never ever vote for McCain.

 

[bhkad]

Ain't gunna happen. I would never ever vote for McCain.

If I was a Ron Paul fan I wouldn't, either!

 

[Schweddy]

Or even if you were a conservative. :roll:

 

[LaMidRighter]

Ain't gunna happen. I would never ever vote for McCain.

I'm with ya. Count me out as well.

 

[bhkad]

Or even if you were a conservative. :roll:

Think about something a moment.

Anyone who has thought about what we are trying to encourage in Iraq will see this. The only way that Iraq can come out of this war successfully, is if the people stop being so tied to their smaller, more parochial, identities as Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds or Baathists and instead gain a larger, more unifying vision of themselves as IRAQIS.

The Conservative movement is important. But in this time of war the most important thing is AMERICA.

Mitt Romney bowed out of the race because it was best for America.

I am embracing McCain's candidacy because it is best for America.

But you just go ahead and cling to your ideology.

 

[jallman]

Or even if you were a conservative. :roll:

I'm fairly conservative and I support McCain. This is what I don't get about the McCain attacking that's going on now: Republican mouthpieces like Rush and Coulter are so given to idealogy that they would rather see Hillary win than to support the guy who might be a little different but is still with the party. I don't get idealogues at all.

 

[Schweddy]

Think about something a moment.

Anyone who has thought about what we are trying to encourage in Iraq will see this. The only way that Iraq can come out of this war successfully, is if the people stop being so tied to their smaller, more parochial, identities as Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds or Baathists and instead gain a larger, more unifying vision of themselves as IRAQIS.

The Conservative movement is important. But in this time of war the most important thing is AMERICA.

Mitt Romney bowed out of the race because it was best for America.

I am embracing McCain's candidacy because it is best for America.

But you just go ahead and cling to your ideology.

I could say the same thing in reverse.

We need to get OUT OF IRAQ - it is best for AMERICA.

Mitt Romney *suspended* his campaign so it will go brokered convention. He has not officially dropped.

I am embracing Ron Pauls candidacy because it is best for America.

But you just go ahead and cling to your ideology.

Question: Who are you most concered about in the war? Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Baathists or Americans?

 

[bhkad]

I'm fairly conservative and I support McCain. This is what I don't get about the McCain attacking that's going on now: Republican mouthpieces like Rush and Coulter are so given to idealogy that they would rather see Hillary win than to support the guy who might be a little different but is still with the party. I don't get idealogues at all.

I think maybe they were pursuing slightly different agendas than the rest of the party faithful. And in time they might even come around.

 

[jallman]

I think maybe they were pursuing slightly different agendas than the rest of the party faithful. And in time they might even come around.

As long as a candidate is in that is going to see this war to its SUCCESSFUL completion and take the radical Islam threat seriously, that's the candidate I am going to back. McCain is right in line with how I feel about a lot of issues and he's a republican. I'm down with that.

 

[bhkad]

I could say the same thing in reverse.

We need to get OUT OF IRAQ - it is best for AMERICA.

Mitt Romney *suspended* his campaign so it will go brokered convention. He has not officially dropped.

I am embracing Ron Pauls candidacy because it is best for America.

But you just go ahead and cling to your ideology.

Question: Who are you most concered about in the war? Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Baathists or Americans?

I don't want to run in a circle right now. Maybe another time though.

 

[ARealConservative]

I'm fairly conservative and I support McCain. This is what I don't get about the McCain attacking that's going on now: Republican mouthpieces like Rush and Coulter are so given to idealogy that they would rather see Hillary win than to support the guy who might be a little different but is still with the party. I don't get idealogues at all.

McCain is "fairly conservative".

big woop.

 

[Schweddy]

I don't want to run in a circle right now. Maybe another time though.

Question: Who are you most concerned about in the war? Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Baathists or Americans?

Valid question.

 

[donsutherland1]

Bhkad,

In my opinion, there are just four remaining candidates who offer a complete policy package: domestic and foreign policy. It is a matter of which one the voters will ultimately choose.

At this time, even as enormous differences divide the four major Democratic and Republican Party candidates, each candidate offers a coherent perspective on foreign policy. No credible candidate can offer an approach that entails a wholesale abandonment of the nation's critical overseas interests, allies, and trade agreements. Abdication is no substitute for a credible foreign policy.

A credible foreign policy rests on strong alliances, robust diplomacy, a well-designed foreign aid strategy, and a strong military in order to safeguard and advance the nation's critical interests. In a world in which globalization is irreversible and geopolitical challenges and opportunities beckon, the U.S. absolutely needs a credible foreign policy. Abdication would be little more than a counsel of despair. It would almost certainly lead down a road to ruin.

The U.S. tried the non-interventionist path prior to World War II. That route proved disastrous. No candidate who seeks to return to that failed approach will gain much traction. The downside risks to the nation's wellbeing are simply too great for the American people to accept such a reckless course.

In my view, among the great contemporary foreign policy challenges is the ongoing ideological struggle with radical Islamists. Beyond that Iran poses a potentially enormous threat. The continuing evolution of Russia and China provides both threats and opportunities. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Iraq war, I believe rapid withdrawal would embolden terrorist movements from the perceptions of a lack of American resolve that it would create. It would demoralize the nation's allies. American dependability is vital foreign policy currency.

Today, Governor Romney was on the mark in highlighting the nature of the ideological struggle. He proclaimed:

And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America – and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy. To them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

In withdrawing from the race, he put country ahead of self, sacrifice ahead of ego, and unity ahead of divisiveness. I certainly wish him well and respect him for all that he brought to the campaign.​

 

[donsutherland1]

Question: Who are you most concerned about in the war? Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Baathists or Americans?

Valid question.

I would suggest that he is concerned solely with America's national interests.

 

[UtahBill]

Question: Who are you most concerned about in the war? Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Baathists or Americans?

Valid question.

He said he doesn't want to run in a circle right now. I would have said I don't want to run in a circle of jerks right now....:2wave:

 

[Schweddy]

He said he doesn't want to run in a circle right now. I would have said I don't want to run in a circle of jerks right now....:2wave:

I just know he cannot answer the question - he placed foot in mouth when he said: The only way that Iraq can come out of this war successfully, is if the people stop being so tied to their smaller, more parochial, identities as Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds or Baathists and instead gain a larger, more unifying vision of themselves as IRAQIS.
That is western political thinking. We cannot force our way of thinking on them no matter how much American blood is split.

That reasoning is like trying to ask a Jewish Rabbi to take Christ communion for the good of the USA. Kinda silly.

They cannot have a government without their God as defined in their Qur'an. That definition of how the religious ranking is defined is the reason they are fighting against each other. Sounds illogical to us, we cannot understand it. We are westerners.​

 

[bhkad]

He said he doesn't want to run in a circle right now. I would have said I don't want to run in a circle of jerks right now....:2wave:

Vauge is the Administrator of this forum. I defer more to him than I would Mods or members with whom I'd disagree.

Not because of what he could do to affect my tenure here, but as a sign of respect.

I'm glad to see you recognized the phrase!

I was hoping that other conservatives would help popularize it. The libs have popularized, "Gang of Five or Six" but "Circle of Jerks" is a much better phrase!

Thanks!

:mrgreen:

 

[UtahBill]

I just know he cannot answer the question - he placed foot in mouth when he said: The only way that Iraq can come out of this war successfully, is if the people stop being so tied to their smaller, more parochial, identities as Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds or Baathists and instead gain a larger, more unifying vision of themselves as IRAQIS.
That is western political thinking. We cannot force our way of thinking on them no matter how much American blood is split.

That reasoning is like trying to ask a Jewish Rabbi to take Christ communion for the good of the USA. Kinda silly.

They cannot have a government without their God as defined in their Qur'an. That definition of how the religious ranking is defined is the reason they are fighting against each other. Sounds illogical to us, we cannot understand it. We are westerners.​

Not that you are wrong, but he is right. We should not be trying to force western ideas on ignorant savages who would rather die than allow their neighbors to have freedom of religion. If they tried freedom of religion, and separation of church and state, they probably would become civilized.

I think there is an alternative way to force them to consider it. We should be buying our oil from Russia, and boycotting ME oil. Let them eat sand until they decide to try tolerance of the beliefs of others.

 

[UtahBill]

Vauge is the Administrator of this forum. I defer more to him than I would Mods or members with whom I'd disagree.

Not because of what he could do to affect my tenure here, but as a sign of respect.

I'm glad to see you recognized the phrase!

I was hoping that other conservatives would help popularize it. The libs have popularized, "Gang of Five or Six" but "Circle of Jerks" is a much better phrase!

Thanks!

:mrgreen:

and they take turns being pivot man....

 

[bhkad]

I just know he cannot answer the question - he placed foot in mouth when he said: The only way that Iraq can come out of this war successfully, is if the people stop being so tied to their smaller, more parochial, identities as Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds or Baathists and instead gain a larger, more unifying vision of themselves as IRAQIS.
That is western political thinking. We cannot force our way of thinking on them no matter how much American blood is split.

That reasoning is like trying to ask a Jewish Rabbi to take Christ communion for the good of the USA. Kinda silly.

They cannot have a government without their God as defined in their Qur'an. That definition of how the religious ranking is defined is the reason they are fighting against each other. Sounds illogical to us, we cannot understand it. We are westerners.​

The lack of internecine violence in other Arab countries suggest that nationalism is possible even though you want us to believe otherwise.

The majority of the world’s billion-odd Muslims are Sunnis. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of all Muslims follow the Shiite branch (pronounced Shi‘ite, Shi‘a or Shia). Beyond that, it gets slightly complicated: Who lives where, and why the differences and conflicts between them? The answer is less daunting than it seems.

Sunnis form the overwhelming majority in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Shiites form the majority only in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan, but they constitute sizable minorities in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

Islam: Sunnis and Shiites

Shia and Sunni CAN AND DO get along.

It can happen in Iraq.

 

[bhkad]

Question: Who are you most concerned about in the war? Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Baathists or Americans?

Valid question.

Americans. But not to the exclusion of concern about the actions, decisions, and well being of the others.

What you have to recognize is that no one who supports the war can possibly be totally selfish or unconcerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people to some degree.

 

[Schweddy]

The lack of internecine violence in other Arab countries suggest that nationalism is possible even though you want us to believe otherwise.

I personally don't care what you believe, even if I believe your position is irrational. If your position is indeed rational to me, then I would give it more time. The same is with any user here that can sustain a full thread.

Shia and Sunni CAN AND DO get along.

It can happen in Iraq.

Of course, by their own accord. The US should not and cannot be a mediator, we cannot afford it on multiple levels.

Vauge is the Administrator of this forum. I defer more to him than I would Mods or members with whom I'd disagree.

Not because of what he could do to affect my tenure here, but as a sign of respect.

I (or any of the mods) would never ban anyone based on ideology or civil discussion. Sad part is that we (bkhad and I) agree on virtually everything except the Jihad thinger. lol

 

[bhkad]

Bhkad,

In my opinion, there are just four remaining candidates who offer a complete policy package: domestic and foreign policy. It is a matter of which one the voters will ultimately choose.

At this time, even as enormous differences divide the four major Democratic and Republican Party candidates, each candidate offers a coherent perspective on foreign policy. No credible candidate can offer an approach that entails a wholesale abandonment of the nation's critical overseas interests, allies, and trade agreements. Abdication is no substitute for a credible foreign policy.

A credible foreign policy rests on strong alliances, robust diplomacy, a well-designed foreign aid strategy, and a strong military in order to safeguard and advance the nation's critical interests. In a world in which globalization is irreversible and geopolitical challenges and opportunities beckon, the U.S. absolutely needs a credible foreign policy. Abdication would be little more than a counsel of despair. It would almost certainly lead down a road to ruin.

The U.S. tried the non-interventionist path prior to World War II. That route proved disastrous. No candidate who seeks to return to that failed approach will gain much traction. The downside risks to the nation's wellbeing are simply too great for the American people to accept such a reckless course.

In my view, among the great contemporary foreign policy challenges is the ongoing ideological struggle with radical Islamists. Beyond that Iran poses a potentially enormous threat. The continuing evolution of Russia and China provides both threats and opportunities. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Iraq war, I believe rapid withdrawal would embolden terrorist movements from the perceptions of a lack of American resolve that it would create. It would demoralize the nation's allies. American dependability is vital foreign policy currency.

Today, Governor Romney was on the mark in highlighting the nature of the ideological struggle. He proclaimed:

And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America – and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy. To them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

In withdrawing from the race, he put country ahead of self, sacrifice ahead of ego, and unity ahead of divisiveness. I certainly wish him well and respect him for all that he brought to the campaign.​

:agree

I could not agree more.

 

[Schweddy]

Americans. But not to the exclusion of concern about the actions, decisions, and well being of the others.

What you have to recognize is that no one who supports the war can possibly be totally selfish or unconcerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people to some degree.

Convince me that The Iraq war was/is a just war for the people of Iraq and that the US is totally unselfish. Prove to me that we care about the people there and not the profits.

It's not about the oil IMO. We only get 3% of our oil from there. It is the profits from commercial companys "rebuilding Iraq". Unfortunately, I believe that is sustaining our economy over here.